attack on you. You must constantly maintain an offensive position. Or like this: I, so to speak, instead of answering and in order to answer (I prefer it this way), w i l l t a k e t h e f l o o r in turn and you will be fully satisfied. From my experience, this is the best tactic with brazen people. They are cowards and will immediately back down, be cut short.

They do not like it when we cite resolutions. But this is the best answer: I came here chiefly, they say, in order to convey formulated party decisions of our workers' party. Whoever is interested in these decisions, here I will recount one of them.

Pay special attention and review in advance:

1) the resolution of the January 1912 conference on the constitution of the conference 342.

This concerns the question of the legitimacy of the January 1912 conference (Rosa Luxemburg will probably raise the question of legitimacy, and others too). (By the way: I am pleased that... the Germans will understand you poorly or not at all — sit closer to the Executive Committee and speak for them. You yourself have full right to ask Huysmans after each German speech: translation, please!)

2) The resolutions of 1912 and 1913 on flexible forms 343 (for Kautsky: this fool does not know how to understand the difference between recognition of the underground and the search for new forms of covering this underground and organizing it).

3) The resolution of II. 1913 on unity from below 344 ("You allegedly exclude 670 workers' groups??" Nonsense! We call for them. — "The majority allegedly has no right to exclude the minority." — Except in the case when the minority thwarts the will of the majority, disobeys formal decisions. This is precisely our case).

Your V. U.

I advise you not to forget the official definition (take the French text of the ISB resolution of XII. 1913 from Popov or Huysmans) of the conference's purpose:
To express together one's opinion
on disputed points!!

Only! To express together one's opinion — you, they say, are doing precisely this.

For popular explanation (you must be extremely popular with the French), the theme of the illegal organization is also very important — the strict trust it requires, conspiracy, etc. You Europeans have it easy: an open party, legal, there are lists of party members, there is open control and verification!! Then everything is easy!!

For us, however, precise and open definition of party membership in an illegal organization is impossible, and open control is impossible. Therefore, maximum trust is required in order to observe discipline and work in harmony, while the liquidators, renouncing the underground, destroy the very possibility of joint work.

However, it is mistaken to think that in Russia one cannot now determine the forces of tendencies, who has the majority.

Thanks to the newspaper, contributions from workers' groups, etc., one can determine this completely reliably and indisputably.
(I sent Popov a series of tables and documents for translation of the headings and for entry into the Bureau.)

In Gregory's opinion, one cannot withdraw because of the refusal to keep and publish protocols; but a written statement should be submitted. The Executive Committee is a mediator. You must remember this firmly (this is in the official resolution of the International Socialist Bureau of XII. 1913). Not a judge, but a mediator. In case of anything, state it thus: we thank you for mediation, we gladly accepted it, cite the ISB resolution (XII. 1913). The word is "mediation," but from the mediator we ask transmission to the opponent: 1) our conditions and 2) objective data. That's all!!

NB. We are an autonomous party. Remember this firmly. No one has the right to impose a foreign will upon us, and the International Socialist Bureau does not have the right. If there are threats, that's a single phrase.